Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses

Autores
Simmons, Mark P.; Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Stöver, Ben C.; Springer, Mark S.; Gatesy, John
Año de publicación
2023
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Gene-tree-inference error can cause species-tree-inference artefacts in summary phylogenomic coalescent analyses. Here we integrate two ways of accommodating these inference errors: collapsing arbitrarily or dubiously resolved gene-tree branches, and subsampling gene trees based on their pairwise congruence. We tested the effect of collapsing gene-tree branches with 0% approximate-likelihood-ratio-test (SH-like aLRT) support in likelihood analyses and strict consensus trees for parsimony, and then subsampled those partially resolved trees based on congruence measures that do not penalize polytomies. For this purpose we developed a new TNT script for congruence sorting (congsort), and used it to calculate topological incongruence for eight phylogenomic datasets using three distance measures: standard Robinson–Foulds (RF) distances; overall success of resolution (OSR), which is based on counting both matching and contradicting clades; and RF contradictions, which only counts contradictory clades. As expected, we found that gene-tree incongruence was often concentrated in clades that are arbitrarily ordubiously resolved and that there was greater congruence between the partially collapsed gene trees and the coalescent and concatenation topologies inferred from those genes. Coalescent branch lengths typically increased as the most incongruent gene treeswere excluded, although branch supports typically did not. We investigated two successful and complementary approaches to prioritizing genes for investigation of alignment or homology errors. Coalescent-tree clades that contradicted concatenation-tree clades were generally less robust to gene-tree subsampling than congruent clades. Our preferred approach to collapsing likelihood gene-tree clades (0% SH-like aLRT support) and subsampling those trees (OSR) generally outperformed competing approaches for a large fungal dataset with respect to branch lengths, support and congruence. We recommend widespread application of this approach (and strict consensus trees for parsimony-based analyses) for improving quantification of gene-tree congruence/conflict, estimating coalescent branch lengths, testing robustness of coalescent analyses to gene-tree-estimation error, and improving topological robustness of summary coalescent analyses. This approach is quick and easy to implement, even for huge datasets.
Fil: Simmons, Mark P.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos
Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Stöver, Ben C.. Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity; Alemania
Fil: Springer, Mark S.. University of California; Estados Unidos
Fil: Gatesy, John. American Museum of Natural History; Estados Unidos
Materia
phylogeny
tree comparisons
coalescence
parsimony
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/238605

id CONICETDig_84f7d3c5e608a361ffa8a940b3083956
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/238605
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analysesSimmons, Mark P.Goloboff, Pablo AugustoStöver, Ben C.Springer, Mark S.Gatesy, Johnphylogenytree comparisonscoalescenceparsimonyhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Gene-tree-inference error can cause species-tree-inference artefacts in summary phylogenomic coalescent analyses. Here we integrate two ways of accommodating these inference errors: collapsing arbitrarily or dubiously resolved gene-tree branches, and subsampling gene trees based on their pairwise congruence. We tested the effect of collapsing gene-tree branches with 0% approximate-likelihood-ratio-test (SH-like aLRT) support in likelihood analyses and strict consensus trees for parsimony, and then subsampled those partially resolved trees based on congruence measures that do not penalize polytomies. For this purpose we developed a new TNT script for congruence sorting (congsort), and used it to calculate topological incongruence for eight phylogenomic datasets using three distance measures: standard Robinson–Foulds (RF) distances; overall success of resolution (OSR), which is based on counting both matching and contradicting clades; and RF contradictions, which only counts contradictory clades. As expected, we found that gene-tree incongruence was often concentrated in clades that are arbitrarily ordubiously resolved and that there was greater congruence between the partially collapsed gene trees and the coalescent and concatenation topologies inferred from those genes. Coalescent branch lengths typically increased as the most incongruent gene treeswere excluded, although branch supports typically did not. We investigated two successful and complementary approaches to prioritizing genes for investigation of alignment or homology errors. Coalescent-tree clades that contradicted concatenation-tree clades were generally less robust to gene-tree subsampling than congruent clades. Our preferred approach to collapsing likelihood gene-tree clades (0% SH-like aLRT support) and subsampling those trees (OSR) generally outperformed competing approaches for a large fungal dataset with respect to branch lengths, support and congruence. We recommend widespread application of this approach (and strict consensus trees for parsimony-based analyses) for improving quantification of gene-tree congruence/conflict, estimating coalescent branch lengths, testing robustness of coalescent analyses to gene-tree-estimation error, and improving topological robustness of summary coalescent analyses. This approach is quick and easy to implement, even for huge datasets.Fil: Simmons, Mark P.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Stöver, Ben C.. Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity; AlemaniaFil: Springer, Mark S.. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Gatesy, John. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2023-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/238605Simmons, Mark P.; Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Stöver, Ben C.; Springer, Mark S.; Gatesy, John; Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 39; 5; 4-2023; 418-4360748-3007CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12540info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/cla.12540info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T14:52:49Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/238605instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-15 14:52:49.259CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
title Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
spellingShingle Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
Simmons, Mark P.
phylogeny
tree comparisons
coalescence
parsimony
title_short Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
title_full Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
title_fullStr Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
title_sort Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Simmons, Mark P.
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
Stöver, Ben C.
Springer, Mark S.
Gatesy, John
author Simmons, Mark P.
author_facet Simmons, Mark P.
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
Stöver, Ben C.
Springer, Mark S.
Gatesy, John
author_role author
author2 Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
Stöver, Ben C.
Springer, Mark S.
Gatesy, John
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv phylogeny
tree comparisons
coalescence
parsimony
topic phylogeny
tree comparisons
coalescence
parsimony
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Gene-tree-inference error can cause species-tree-inference artefacts in summary phylogenomic coalescent analyses. Here we integrate two ways of accommodating these inference errors: collapsing arbitrarily or dubiously resolved gene-tree branches, and subsampling gene trees based on their pairwise congruence. We tested the effect of collapsing gene-tree branches with 0% approximate-likelihood-ratio-test (SH-like aLRT) support in likelihood analyses and strict consensus trees for parsimony, and then subsampled those partially resolved trees based on congruence measures that do not penalize polytomies. For this purpose we developed a new TNT script for congruence sorting (congsort), and used it to calculate topological incongruence for eight phylogenomic datasets using three distance measures: standard Robinson–Foulds (RF) distances; overall success of resolution (OSR), which is based on counting both matching and contradicting clades; and RF contradictions, which only counts contradictory clades. As expected, we found that gene-tree incongruence was often concentrated in clades that are arbitrarily ordubiously resolved and that there was greater congruence between the partially collapsed gene trees and the coalescent and concatenation topologies inferred from those genes. Coalescent branch lengths typically increased as the most incongruent gene treeswere excluded, although branch supports typically did not. We investigated two successful and complementary approaches to prioritizing genes for investigation of alignment or homology errors. Coalescent-tree clades that contradicted concatenation-tree clades were generally less robust to gene-tree subsampling than congruent clades. Our preferred approach to collapsing likelihood gene-tree clades (0% SH-like aLRT support) and subsampling those trees (OSR) generally outperformed competing approaches for a large fungal dataset with respect to branch lengths, support and congruence. We recommend widespread application of this approach (and strict consensus trees for parsimony-based analyses) for improving quantification of gene-tree congruence/conflict, estimating coalescent branch lengths, testing robustness of coalescent analyses to gene-tree-estimation error, and improving topological robustness of summary coalescent analyses. This approach is quick and easy to implement, even for huge datasets.
Fil: Simmons, Mark P.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos
Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Stöver, Ben C.. Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity; Alemania
Fil: Springer, Mark S.. University of California; Estados Unidos
Fil: Gatesy, John. American Museum of Natural History; Estados Unidos
description Gene-tree-inference error can cause species-tree-inference artefacts in summary phylogenomic coalescent analyses. Here we integrate two ways of accommodating these inference errors: collapsing arbitrarily or dubiously resolved gene-tree branches, and subsampling gene trees based on their pairwise congruence. We tested the effect of collapsing gene-tree branches with 0% approximate-likelihood-ratio-test (SH-like aLRT) support in likelihood analyses and strict consensus trees for parsimony, and then subsampled those partially resolved trees based on congruence measures that do not penalize polytomies. For this purpose we developed a new TNT script for congruence sorting (congsort), and used it to calculate topological incongruence for eight phylogenomic datasets using three distance measures: standard Robinson–Foulds (RF) distances; overall success of resolution (OSR), which is based on counting both matching and contradicting clades; and RF contradictions, which only counts contradictory clades. As expected, we found that gene-tree incongruence was often concentrated in clades that are arbitrarily ordubiously resolved and that there was greater congruence between the partially collapsed gene trees and the coalescent and concatenation topologies inferred from those genes. Coalescent branch lengths typically increased as the most incongruent gene treeswere excluded, although branch supports typically did not. We investigated two successful and complementary approaches to prioritizing genes for investigation of alignment or homology errors. Coalescent-tree clades that contradicted concatenation-tree clades were generally less robust to gene-tree subsampling than congruent clades. Our preferred approach to collapsing likelihood gene-tree clades (0% SH-like aLRT support) and subsampling those trees (OSR) generally outperformed competing approaches for a large fungal dataset with respect to branch lengths, support and congruence. We recommend widespread application of this approach (and strict consensus trees for parsimony-based analyses) for improving quantification of gene-tree congruence/conflict, estimating coalescent branch lengths, testing robustness of coalescent analyses to gene-tree-estimation error, and improving topological robustness of summary coalescent analyses. This approach is quick and easy to implement, even for huge datasets.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023-04
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/238605
Simmons, Mark P.; Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Stöver, Ben C.; Springer, Mark S.; Gatesy, John; Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 39; 5; 4-2023; 418-436
0748-3007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/238605
identifier_str_mv Simmons, Mark P.; Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Stöver, Ben C.; Springer, Mark S.; Gatesy, John; Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 39; 5; 4-2023; 418-436
0748-3007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12540
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/cla.12540
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846083057023451136
score 13.22299